Should welfare be completely repealed, especially for those who really need it?

[AF 802]

I know there's a lot of lolcows that have disability that really shouldn't have it, which made me wonder if Kiwi thinks if welfare programs like SSDI should be completely repealed and not replaced with anything, or if it should just be reformed somehow to cut down on abuse. There's quite a few people who do need it, I believe, who might not be able to work (at least, a full time job paying a good wage), but I think there should be a much stricter process on what disabilities qualify, and if so, if you really need it permanently or just for a short amount of time until a doctor or physician confirms you to be well enough to be off welfare. Yes, tardbux are funny, but I believe there might be a few people who think welfare shouldn't be a thing otherwise.

 

[Lemmingwise]

There never is a way to have these things strict enough to be perfect. It's a choice: are you willing to fund opportunists and grifters or are you willing to stop funding those in need?

 

[Terminus Est]

Yes. Get a fucking job like the rest of us

 

[RinguPingu745]

There are people who definitely need the help, such as those who have back injuries that prevent them from being able to work. Being on it just because you can't mentally handle work is too much of a stretch for me. Though where I live if you want something like SSDI or SSI you need to fight tooth and nail for it. It often comes down to having to hire a lawyer to prove you need it in the first place. I blame all the frivolous cases for that.

 

[Draza]

I stay keep welfare, but put more regulations to prevent abuse and mismanagement of the system.

 

[The Crow]

If welfare and disability payments got repealed, most of you here would be up shit's creek.

 

[Faket0Fake]

Unfortunately, you can't have anything without people who find ways to game the system. No matter how hard you work to make conditions strict on who gets that support, there will be people who manage it that don't really need it. The more you do, the harder it becomes for the ones who actually do need it to access it, so it's a double edged sword.

I think we need to make some changes in how we define a disability though and the reasons why people need support. The rise in "invisible disabilities" and people treating anxiety like it's fucking cancer are a problem. Give help to the people who need it and make a new system for people who probably could work with support so they don't have a reason to not deal with their own issues. Want welfare because you're depressed or have anxiety? Fine, but you need a letter from a Doctor diagnosing you, have to get treatment for your problems and start doing volunteer work 90 days after starting the treatment if you don't find a job or it'll be taken off you. It should only be an accepted right for people who stand no or little chance of having a job to give them some quality of life and independence. Not being able to work because you are scared of people is not the same as not being able to work because employers would have to spend money and make massive adjustments to accommodate you instead of hire one of the hundreds of able bodied workers for free.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Unfortunately, you can't have anything without people who find ways to game the system. No matter how hard you work to make conditions strict on who gets that support, there will be people who manage it that don't really need it. The more you do, the harder it becomes for the ones who actually do need it to access it, so it's a double edged sword.

I think we need to make some changes in how we define a disability though and the reasons why people need support. The rise in "invisible disabilities" and people treating anxiety like it's fucking cancer are a problem. Give help to the people who need it and make a new system for people who probably could work with support so they don't have a reason to not deal with their own issues. Want welfare because you're depressed or have anxiety? Fine, but you need a letter from a Doctor diagnosing you, have to get treatment for your problems and start doing volunteer work 90 days after starting the treatment if you don't find a job or it'll be taken off you. It should only be an accepted right for people who stand no or little chance of having a job to give them some quality of life and independence. Not being able to work because you are scared of people is not the same as not being able to work because employers would have to spend money and make massive adjustments to accommodate you instead of hire one of the hundreds of able bodied workers for free.

Well yes, that is one of the other three problems with welfare.

Everything you subsidize grows, typically in a cancerlike way.

 

[Otterly]

if You removed welfare totally you’d screw over those who genuinely need it (sick, disabled, injured.) you’d also leave the insane and unemployable with no money and a proportion of them would end up destabilising society by taking from others.

 

[UQ 770]

We could probably solve a lot of welfare issues by legalizing on-demand euthenasia and having the state handle the task of body disposal. Wouldn't even have to repeal or reform welfare at all; most of the people on it are already depressed. Welfare and/or disability recipients usually end up offing themselves or dying because they didn't take care of their bodies anyway, why not make taking the easy way out even easier? Then, on top of that, we'd free up resources for the people who really do need benefits but who actually have something to live for. Everybody wins.

 

[Rand /pol/]

Yes. Get a fucking job like the rest of us

t. wagie

 

[HG 400]

Paying taxes is way worse than poor people slitting my throat and eating me.

 

[Clop]

Big problem with the welfare circle is that you can get by with it. Of course you're supposed to be able to get by with it, that's the point, but if you're already getting by and a job would pay as much as just getting welfare - or it's just worth the small loss of income to get to sit at home - what's the point?

You can't even increase wages, because that'd just mean less jobs in total. The whole fucking system's jammed with too many people. It'd be inhumane to simply repeal welfare since there's going to be a lot of people that just drop dead (especially women, a big 'no no' to let drop dead) and the rapidly increasing automation and cheap migrant labor makes sure that you aren't doing jack shit if the job market was suddenly popular again. You can't keep the welfare in, either, because the more welfare there's to be paid, the more workers we need, which we aren't getting.

It's a rock balanced on the tip of a mountain. It's going to come down sooner or later, and any way it goes it'll take down a lot of puppy orphanages.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Paying taxes is way worse than poor people slitting my throat and eating me.

Is it though?

 

[oldTireWater]

Ideally you wouldn't need a government welfare system because family, community, and social networks would take care of those who need it. They would also be able to distinguish between grifters and the genuinely needy, because the individuals paying would know them first hand. But that's not how we live anymore. Our population densities are too great to live the way we evolved to.

The simplest way to come to terms with it, is to admit to yourself that you don't really give a fuck about anyone you don't know. Help the people you do know, and give no shit what happens to anyone else.

 

[HG 400]

The whole fucking system's jammed with too many people.

1% of the population owns 50% of the world. The problem isn't 'too many people'.

Our day of the rope's a comin, comrades.

 

[Clop]

1% of the population owns 50% of the world. The problem isn't 'too many people'.

Our day of the rope's a comin, comrades.

Just 50%? Comrade, what utopia do you live in?

 

[Chaos Theorist]

Its the old people living so long that clog up the welfare system

 

[HG 400]

Just 50%? Comrade, what utopia do you live in?

I mean, I'm not advocating for communism or anything. I'm just pointing out that literally every civilisation that came before us accepted that the only way to keep a functioning society was to occasionally proscribe the richest citizens, execute them, enslave their wives and children, seize their assets, and then use their money to buy some bread and shit for poor people.

 

[Bad Headspace]

I am not against Welfare as a concept. The problem is when you have a system where it can be used to 1) keep up a permanent trouble maker population and 2) subsidize big businesses in new and inventive ways.

Example for 1) would be US blacks and example for 2) would be the current shilling of the Democratic Party candidates for free healthcare for illegal immigrants. So, the people using illegal immigrants are both having their dudes more safe and they could get away with paying them even less. Or we could take Walmart and the fact that they have some of their employees on food stamps.

An open borders free trade economy and a welfare state can't coexist together.